I wrote here that wisdom is consistent with but doesn’t require travel. A question arises: does travel contribute to wisdom or detract from it? Or does travel not influence one’s wisdom, being a neutral sort of activity?
Seneca claims that the inordinate desire to travel can be a distraction, “for such restlessness is the sign of a disordered spirit. The primary indication, to my thinking, of a well-ordered mind is a man's ability to remain in one place and linger in his own company.” (Compare Pascal, Pensées 139)
According to Diogenes Laertius, Socrates “had no need to travel, except when required to go on an expedition. The rest of his life, he stayed at home and engaged all the more keenly in argument with anyone who would converse with him, his aim being not to alter his opinion but to get at the truth.”
It seems to me that reasonable travel can benefit a mind that is already well-ordered, though travel is not a necessary condition for wisdom.
Can this also be said of experience? Does experience (maybe of oppression) confer authority to speak? And does someone inexperienced in oppression necessarily lack the authority to speak on the matter?